1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for processing data relating to a user's athletic performance and more particularly to systems and methods for processing that data in conjunction with data relating to virtual terrain.
2. Description of the Related Art
Stationary exercise equipment (see DEFINITIONS section), such as stationary bicycles and treadmills, are conventional. It is conventional to use a virtual course (see DEFINITIONS section) in connection with stationary exercise equipment. More specifically, the user makes virtual progress through the virtual course corresponding to her athletic exertion on the stationary exercise equipment. In most, if not all, of these stationary exercise equipment systems, the exercise equipments settings (for example, resistance or incline) are determined based on terrain factors of the virtual course. The virtual course might be represented simply by a numerical “distance” readout, such as on a numerical display panel mounted to the stationary bicycle. Alternatively, the virtual course might be represented by a 2d or 3d graphic display.
Some examples of stationary exercise equipment systems are disclosed in: (i) U.S. Pat. No. 6,450,922 (“Henderson”); (ii) US patent application 2008/0015089 (“Hurwitz”); (iii) U.S. Pat. No. 7,166,064 (“Watterson”); (iv) 2003/0214530 (“Wang”); and (v) US patent application 2005/0075213 (“Arick”). One drawback of stationary exercise equipment based systems is that the exercise experience is stationary (see DEFINITION of “stationary exercise equipment”). Stationary exercise equipment tends to be much less engaging, competitive and/or enjoyable than non-stationary exercise (see DEFINITIONS section).
In some of these publications listed in the previous paragraph, such as Watterson, the system includes a communications network that allows multiple users to progress on the same virtual course, and to, in some sense compete with and/or pace each other. However, it is noted that this competition or pacing is limited because of the control that the virtual course exerts over the exercise equipment settings of each user's exercise equipment. On the one hand, external control of the settings of the exercise equipment, based on parameters of the virtual course, may make: (i) the experiences of separate user's more similar to each other; and/or (ii) any competition between different users more “fair.” On the other hand, this external control of the exercise equipment limits each user's freedom in operating her own exercise equipment, and may therefore make the exercise less pleasant compared to exercise equipment based exercise where the user is in total control of her exercise equipment.
In other conventional exercise systems, athletic exertion exerted by the user during non-stationary exercise is measured. Generally, athletic exertion exerted during non-stationary exercise is not measured by monitoring of exercise equipment, but rather by monitoring the user's body itself. For example, motion detectors, such as accelerometers, may be worn on the body or on clothing in order to directly detect body motion and indirectly detect a degree of athletic exertion. In this document: (i) non-stationary athletic exertion detection based, at least in part, on any monitoring of the user's body (for example, GPS location of a user's body) will be referred to as body-based exertion detection; and (ii) non-stationary athletic exertion detection based, at least in part, upon detection of motion (for example, position, velocity and/or acceleration) of a part of the user's body will be referred to as body-motion-based exertion detection.
Some publications that may disclose body-based exertion detection and/or body-motion-based exertion detection include: (i) U.S. Pat. No. 6,148,280 (“Kramer”); (ii) US patent application 2002/0024450 (“Townsend”); (iii) US patent application 2005/0037844 (“Shum”); (iv) US patent application 2006/0064037 (“Shalon”); and (v) US patent application 2006/0262120 (“Rosenberg”).
US patent application 2007/0287596 (“Case”) discloses an athletic performance monitoring system that includes body-based exertion detection and, more specifically, body-motion-based exertion detection. Case discloses the use of a virtual course, stating: “The illustrated display 600 shows two virtual athletes 606 and 610 on the same (or approximately the same) course or route. The second virtual athlete 610 may represent the same individual and correspond to data associated with two different performances on the same (or similarly located) route. As another alternative, the second virtual athlete 610 may represent a different individual from the first virtual athlete 606, and the two displayed events may represent the two athlete's head-to-head competition in a single event or their individual efforts on the same course staggered or otherwise at different times. A second indicator display region 612 also may be provided to display instantaneous values of various measured time, distance, physical, and/or physiological parameters associated with the second virtual athlete 610's athletic performance at locations along the route. Of course, the data for the two athletic performances may be obtained from any source(s) without departing from the invention. Additionally, users may independently animate the action from each virtual athlete 606 and 610 (e.g., by separately activating “play” buttons 604 and 614 in the illustrated example or taking other appropriate action), or the virtual athletes 606 and 610 may be activated simultaneously and virtually ‘race’ one another (e.g., by activating the ‘play all’ button 616 in the illustrated example, or taking other appropriate action).”
Case goes on to disclose: “[A]fter running (or otherwise covering) any route with a GPS monitor in an athletic performance monitoring system and method according to examples of this invention (or otherwise obtaining data relating to the route, e.g., from different data sources, different sensors, etc.), an athlete, trainer, or coach may use that data in conjunction with a computer (or other processing device) to automatically generate their own virtual version of the route and/or use this data to develop an adjusted race plan for the route. For example, after providing the necessary route data for the system and method (e.g., by running or otherwise moving over the course with the GPS monitor system and/or other portions of an athletic performance monitoring system according to the invention), the tracking points may be downloaded to a computer. Then, upon supplying a target completion time for the same route, the software would provide route adjusted split times for each mile and/or other segment distances, optionally taking into account the elevational changes over the route, prevailing wind directions, wind speed, and/or other factors that may influence the difficulty of one portion of the course versus another. Such systems and methods also could calculate target split times to reach specific course landmarks, like aid stations, the halfway point, the bridge, and so forth. Optionally, such systems and methods may be operated shortly before the race begins, to enable incorporation of the local conditions at the time of the race (e.g., wind speed, direction, etc.). Any desired algorithm may be used to determine appropriate split times from a target overall time without departing from the invention.” (Note: in the foregoing excerpts of Case, all reference numerals refer to the Case patent document.)
Case is focused on recording data of specific performances of individuals and then allowing people to compare performances via their data. However, Case discloses that users whose performances are being compared must be “on the same (or approximately the same) course or route.” For this reason, Case cannot be considered to receive a user's athletic exertion as an input and normalize this input for virtual terrain (see DEFINITIONS of “virtual terrain” and “normalize athletic exertion for virtual terrain”). More specifically, the Case system does not provide a virtual environment that allows for performances to be normalized regardless of the degree of similarity in the real world courses or real world routes of respective performances (whether at different times and/or by different individual users). The Case system requires the real world terrain that respective users actually travel through during their non-stationary exercise to be at least “approximately the same.” This is a serious drawback of the Case system.
In the above-quoted portion of Case, it is disclosed that projected splits are adjusted by inputting assumptions about effects of elevation, wind, etc. However, this disclosure of the use of terrain factors in the Case system still does not normalize an actual performance, based on real athletic exertion, for virtual terrain. Rather, the terrain factors are merely used to calculate a virtual pacing performance. Case does not disclose that actual athletic exertion (of a single user or multiple users) can be used as a basis for pacing, competition or any other reason, unless, as discussed above, the performances are made on the same or similar course. Again, this is because Case does not normalize athletic exertion for virtual terrain.
To put some of the foregoing ideas in other words, the Case system merely simulates the real world with a virtual course. This is good because by limiting the virtual course to something that reflects the real world, a user's athletic exertion does not need to be normalized in order to compare performances made at different times or in different (similar terrain) places. On the other hand, the Case system does not allow: (i) a performance to be evocatively mapped onto a place significantly different from where a user is; and/or (ii) meaningful competition between non-stationary users travelling over significantly different terrain.
Other systems of possible interest (which may or may not be prior art) include the following: (i) US patent application 2008/0086318 (“Gilley”); (ii) US patent application 2003/0227453 (“Beier”); (iii) U.S. Pat. No. 7,278,966 (“Hjelt”); (iv) U.S. Pat. No. 6,672,991 (“O'Malley”); (v) U.S. Pat. No. 6,497,638 (“Shea”); and (vi) MAP MY RIDE website (note: MAP MY RIDE may be subject to trademark rights in some jurisdictions) at www.mapmyride.com/tdf/ (published as of Jun. 23, 2009).
Description Of the Related Art Section Disclaimer: To the extent that specific publications are discussed above in this Description of the Related Art Section, these discussions should not be taken as an admission that the discussed publications (for example, published patents) are prior art for patent law purposes. For example, some or all of the discussed publications may not be sufficiently early in time, may not reflect subject matter developed early enough in time and/or may not be sufficiently enabling so as to amount to prior art for patent law purposes. To the extent that specific publications are discussed above in this Description of the Related Art Section, they are all hereby incorporated by reference into this document in their respective entirety(ies).